A study on late time UV-emission in core collapse supernovae and the implications for the peculiar transient AT2018cow

TL;DR

This study investigates late-time UV emissions in core-collapse supernovae to determine if the peculiar transient AT2018cow's UV detection aligns with supernova behavior or suggests an alternative origin like a tidal disruption event.

Contribution

It provides the first systematic analysis of late-time UV emissions in CCSNe, comparing them to AT2018cow, and discusses implications for the transient's nature.

Findings

Late-time UV detection in AT2018cow is consistent with some CCSNe.

Most CCSNe do not show such bright late-time UV emission.

AT2018cow's properties favor a tidal disruption origin over a supernova.

Abstract

Over time, core-collapse supernova (CCSN) spectra become redder due to dust formation and cooling of the SN ejecta. A UV detection of a CCSN at late times thus indicates an additional physical process such as interaction between the SN ejecta and the circumstellar material, or viewing down to the central engine of the explosion. Both these models have been proposed to explain the peculiar transient AT2018cow, a luminous fast blue optical transient that has been detected in the UV 2-4 years after the event with only marginal fading over this time period. To identify if the late-time UV detection of AT2018cow could indicate that it is a CCSN, we investigate if CCSNe are detected in the UV between 2-5 years after the explosion. We use a sample of 51 nearby (z<0.065) CCSNe observed with the Hubble Space Telescope within 2-5 years of discovery. We measure their brightness, or determine an upper limit on the emission through an artificial star experiment if there is no detection. For two CCSNe we detect a point source within the uncertainty region of the SN position. Both have a low chance alignment probability with bright objects within their host galaxies and are thus likely related to the SNe. Comparing the absolute UV magnitude of AT2018cow to the absolute UV magnitudes of the two potential SN detections, there is no evidence that a late-time UV detection of AT2018cow is atypical for interacting SNe. However, when limiting to CCSNe closer than AT2018cow, we see that it is brighter than the upper limits on most non-detections. Combined with a very small late time photospheric radius of AT2018cow, this leads us to conclude that AT2018cow's late-time UV detection was not driven by interaction. It suggests instead that we are possibly viewing the inner region of the explosion. Such properties are naturally expected in tidal disruption models and are less straightforward in supernova scenarios.